Thursday, January 25, 2007

Use of the Term "Anti-Catholic" in Protestant and Secular Scholarly Works of History and Sociology

Many Protestant polemicists (themselves not coincidentally also often anti-Catholic) have contended that the use of this term is completely arbitrary and essentially a defensive invention of Catholic apologists and polemicists, for their own ends. In fact, the term has a long pedigree in scholarly circles. I aim here to document its use amongst non-Catholic scholars and other social or historical or theological observers.* * * * *

Recently on a public bulletin board, a Protestant argued to the effect that the term anti-Catholic has no objective, commonly-understood definition, is completely arbitrary, and defined according to the whim and fancy of Catholic apologists (sometimes indeed this is true, but not usually in the case of credentialed apologists; rather, this happens with some relatively uninformed Catholics on bulletin boards who are being overly-defensive and resorting to sloppy terminology). It was stated that the term has no meaning, is irrational and strictly prejudicial, and that no dictionary or scholarly reference work can be appealed to as a source for its use. It was supposedly invented by Catholic apologists, and Protestants (so I was "informed") rarely, if ever, use the term. I was challenged to do a search on Google to see what I could find. So I did. I also searched many of the books in my library: works of Protestant church history and sociology of religion. The results were most enlightening (but not surprising at all to me). Now I shall cite these many reputable Protestant and secular scholarly sources which blatantly contradict the cynical, thoroughly wrongheaded account of things, outlined above:

. . . it's most powerful strain is anti-Catholicism . . . Although nativism and anti-Catholicism are not synonymous (indeed, Catholics have been nativists), the two are usually linked and anti-Catholicism has tended to dominate other nativist traditions.Outbursts of anti-Catholic nativism have occurred in U.S. history whenever conditions of social and economic stress have conspired to arouse the deep-rooted suspicion that Catholicism is not compatible with American democratic institutions . . . After the colonial period, three main waves of anti-Catholic nativism surged through the land . . . .Anti-Catholic propaganda during this period included bogus tales of sacerdotal lust and infanticide in Maria Monk's Awful Disclosures of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery in Montreal (1836) and W.C. Brownlee's biweekly American Protestant Vindicator (1834-1842).. . . The rural Midwestern American Protective Association (APA) revived anti-Catholic feeling by blaming hard tomes on Irish Catholic labor leaders and claiming to have uncovered a secret papal plot for Catholic rebellion and the massacre of American Protestants . . .. . . New York Governor Alfred E. Smith would still feel residues of anti-Catholicism in his 1924 and 1928 bids for the presidency, During the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy, himself a latter-day nativist, occasioned new manifestations of anti-Catholicism . . .To say that the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960 and his subsequent assassination had destroyed anti-Catholicism as a force in American life would probably be overly optimistic. The endurance of phenomena such as Jack Chick Publications suggests that, given sufficient stimuli, anti-Catholic nationalism might resurface.

[cites in bibliography:R. Bellah and F. Greenspahn, Uncivil Religion: Interreligious Hostility in America(1986)R.A. Billington,The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, A Study of the Origins of American Nativism (1952: I have this book in my library) ]

3. Page Smith, The Rise of Industrial America, Vol. 6 of 8 of a series on American history, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1984; Index: "Catholic Church: anti-Catholic hostility": 533, 580-586, 604. Smith is one of the most highly-respected historians of America.

. . . If non-Catholic Americans were bitterly divided on scores of issues . . . they were as one in their fear and hatred of the Catholic Church and, generally speaking, of Catholics in the abstract, if not always in the particular. Pious Protestants still thought of the Pope as the Antichrist, the enemy of the faith, the Beast of the Apocalypse. (p. 580)

The hostility of non-Catholic Americans toward their Catholic compatriots remained a conspicuous feature of American life. Typical of the anti-Catholic books that abounded was Romanism and the Republic by a Methodist minister and educator named Leroy Vernon . . . The situation, Vernon warned his readers, was desperate: . . . "in all its horrors, the beastly immorality of priests and people, of Popes, Cardinals and bishops, of men, women, and children, as the result of this wicked, ungodly, unscriptural, and unchristian system of auricular confession."

In the year of the Chicago Exposition [1893] anti-Catholic feeling manifested itself with startling ferocity . . . Anti-Catholic secret societies were formed . . .

The anti-Catholic societies used the forged "instructions" as the basis for a campaign to remove Catholics from private employment and public office. (pp. 583-585)

4. Will Herberg, Protestant Catholic Jew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books, rev. ed., 1960; Herberg is Jewish, and this is a classic in the field of sociology of religion. Index: "Anti-Catholic prejudice: 140-142, 232-238.

. . . repeated outbursts of anti-Catholic rancor that punctuated the three decades before the Civil War, culminating in the Know-Nothing movement . . . Anti-Catholic agitation was renewed in the early 1850s . . . on "Bloody Monday" at Louisville, Kentucky [1855], nearly a hundred Catholics were slain and scores of houses burned to the ground [in the famous Detroit riots of 1967, 43 were killed]. By this time anti-Catholicism had become a leading principle of the so-called Know-Nothing Party . . . the anti-Catholic movement was resumed in the latter part of the century. The Anti-Catholic movement before the Civil War was essentially nativist. (pp. 140-142)

6. Martin Marty [widely-respected Protestant Church historian, University of Chicago], Pilgrims in Their Own Land: 500 Years of Religion in America, New York: Penguin Books, 1984. Index: "anti-Catholicism: 40, 85, 141-143, 244,273-276.

John Foxe's . . . The Book of Martyrs, was a New England best-seller. It fueled the anti-Catholic fires in many Protestant hearts during the Age of Exploration . . . [the illustration on the title page] shows God . . . receiving trumpeted praise from burning Protestant martyrs while the devils look down on a Roman Catholic priest saying Mass. (p. 40)

. . . in 1688, anti-Catholics in and around Maryland . . . (p. 85)

Anti-Catholicism was the sport of the mob as well as the device of leaders . . . enlightened public figures like Benjamin Franklin sounded much like Samuel Adams. Only George Washington was moderate. (p. 142)

Anti-Catholicism did not come to an end because of prudence and politeness to France, and it returned in full force sixty years later in the face of numerous Catholic immigrants. (p. 143)

Anti-Catholic memories were long and hatreds were deep . . . anti-Catholics in America conveniently portrayed the church as a juggernaut poised to crush the United States . . . the editor of the Protestant Home Missionary picked up the cry for the West, where was to be fought a great battle "between truth and error, between law and anarchy -- between Christianity . . . and the combined forces of Infidelity and Popery" . . . Samuel F.B. Morse, both the inventor of the telegraph and the noisiest anti-Catholic around . . . (p. 273)

The Christian and Missionary Alliance was one of scores of journals whose editors kept up the anti-Catholic theme. "God is stronger than either the Romish Church or the Catholic powers of Europe." (p. 307)

8. William G. McLoughlin [professor of history at Brown University], Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1978. Index: "Anti-Catholicism: 3-4, 146, 149. See also Know-Nothings."9. Mark Noll [well-known evangelical writer and historian], "The History of an Encounter: Roman Catholics and Protestant Evangelicals," in Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, editors: Evangelicals and Catholics: Toward a Common Mission, Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995.

After the Second World War, evangelical publishing still maintained a steady beat of anti-Catholic polemic . . . Evangelical publishers also reissued classic anti-Catholic works from the previous century including Charles Chiniquy's Fifty Years in the Church of Rome [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1961] . . . These attitudes toward Catholicism, which evangelicals maintained with something close to unanimity into the 1960s, reached back to the middle decades of the sixteenth century. (pp. 84-85)

Protestant anti-Romanism was a staple of the American theological world . . . anti-Catholic literature was a well-entrenched theological genre. Ray Allen Billington's study [The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, A Study of the Origins of American Nativism , 1952] of the six antebellum decades included a bibiography of nearly forty pages devoted exclusively to anti-Catholic periodicals, books, and pamphlets. (p. 87)

. . . conservative Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge, brought down great wrath upon his head for defending the validity of Catholic baptism [as John Calvin himself had done], even though that defense fully maintained Protestant arguments about the deviance of Rome. (p. 88)

. . . evangelical anti-Catholicism was given new life by the rising current of Catholic immigration into the United States. Protestant writing against Catholicism retained the historical theological animus, but it was almost always a political expression as well. (p. 90)

In the two decades before the Civil War, anti-Catholicism was a staple in shaping the political actions of many Protestants in the North as well as some in the South. (p. 91)

. . . anti-Catholicism was sparked especially by the belief that the Catholic hierarchy discouraged, or even prohibited, the use of Scripture among the laity. (pp. 91-92)

10. Thomas A. Askew [professor of history and chairman of the department at Gordon College] and Peter W. Spellman, The Churches and the American Experience: Ideals and Institutions, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984, p. 113:

Anti-Catholicism in America was never purely religious, for social and economic factors aggravated suspicion of the stranger.

11. David O. Moberg [professor of sociology at Marquette University], The Church as a Social Institution: The Sociology of American Religion, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2nd ed., 1984. Index: "Anti-Catholicism: 286, 300-316, 329, 331, 447-448, 455.

The strength of fundamentalism in the 1920s resulted partially from an unofficial, informal alliance with exploiters of anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic feelings. (p. 286)

Bigotry, especially by anti-Catholics, has been so common that any criticism of Catholicism is likely to be labeled by intellectuals as well as by pro-Catholics as intolerant and unfair . . . Historical accounts of American anti-Catholicism rarely recognize sufficiently the contemporary stimuli that contributed to its periodic outbreaks . . . Current interfaith quarrels indeed are partly a continuation of irrational past struggles, but the tensions have a continuing social, psychological, and ideological basis which must not be overlooked. (pp. 300-301)

In 1928 the Democratic candidate, Alfred E. Smith, was defeated partly because of anti-Catholicism. (p. 302)

Many anti-Catholics are convinced that long-range plans of the Catholic Church include repeal of the First Amendment . . . (p. 304)Future sociologists may devote as much attention to anti-Protestantism as to anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism. (p. 311)

The Protestant Irish from Ulster were among the most fervent anti-Catholics a century ago. (p. 312)

Understanding the American experience evan as late as the nineteenth century requires an understanding of the critical role played by Anti-Catholicism in shaping the character of politics, public education, the media, and social reform . . . Catholics were regarded by Protestants as heretics who had perverted the true faith. (p. 35)

. . . anti-Catholicism in America reached something of an apex in the nineteenth century. For one, many of the major urban daily newspapers displayed a prominent anti-Catholic prejudice: the Chicago Tribune, for example, played a significant role in inciting anti-Catholic agitation throughout the 1840s and 1850s . . . Between 1800 and 1860 . . . American publishing houses published more than 200 anti-Catholic books . . . Anti-Catholicism also ignited the great school wars of the mid-nineteenth century . . . (p. 36)

Yet perhaps the most vociferous expression of anti-Catholicism came from anti-Catholic societies . . . and anti-Catholic political parties. (p. 37)

. . . anti-Semitism was never greatly politicized in the way that anti-Catholicism has been. (p. 38)

. . . although much of the anti-Catholic hostility was born out of economic rivalry and ethnic distrust, it took expression primarily as religious hostility -- as a quarrel over religious doctrine, practice, and authority. (p. 71)

13. Ray Allen Billington, The Protestant Crusade, 1800-1860, A Study of the Origins of American Nativism, New York: Macmillan, 1938; rep. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1952. This entire book is about anti-Catholicism, and is often cited by scholars studying the subject as a classic. The author does not appear to be a Catholic. On the back cover, it is described as a "full account of the development of anti-Catholic, anti-foreign feelings in the United States." It would be futile to cite all the references to anti-Catholicism in it, so I will simply cite two of the chapter headings: "The Roots of Anti-Catholic Prejudice" (chapter one), and "The Literature of Anti-Catholicism" (chapter fourteen).14. Paul Blanshard [prominent and influential secular anti-Catholic], American Freedom and Catholic Power, Boston: Beacon Press, 2nd ed., 1958, pp. 12-13:

Anti-Catholic fanatics in the forties and fifties of the last century caricatured priests, burned a few convents, and spread wild rumors that Catholics were plotting to capture the country by armed rebellion . . . Anti-Catholic political parties appeared in several states and even anti-Catholic candidates for President . . .

Anti-Catholicism in the 19th century was partially attributable to the fact that Catholic leadership was not interested in assimilation.

30. Cedric C. Brown and Arthur Marotti, eds., Texts and Cultural Change in Early Modern England, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1997; includes Marotti's chapter: "Southwell's Remains: Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism in Early Modern England."31. Catholic historian James Hitchcock wrote in Touchstone Magazine: July/August 2000:

"The Real Anti-Catholics"

A few weeks after national attention was focused on the anti-Catholicism ofBob Jones University, a Gallup poll shed interesting light on religious prejudice. It turns out that only 29 percent of such people-broadly called "Evangelical" or"Fundamentalist" -- hold a negative view of the Catholic Church.

Surprisingly, liberal Protestants, who usually think of themselves as being very ecumenical (and are often misleadingly called "mainstream") are very slightly more likely to be anti-Catholic than are Evangelicals. But this should not be as surprising as it seems. Through a great deal of "grass roots" ecumenism, notably the pro-life movement, Catholics and Evangelicals have discovered that they share a commitment to traditional Christian moral teachings and to the authority of Scripture and the historic creeds. They perceive the same dangers besetting them, and sometimes conclude that what unites them is indeed stronger than what divides.

Liberal Protestantism is almost by definition tolerant of other people's beliefs, but in practice it often tolerates only liberal beliefs. It changes rapidly in response to shifts in the culture and tends to become impatient with faiths that refuse to change. Thus, liberal anti-Catholicism arises over such issues as abortion and the ordination of women to the priesthood.

In politics, 31 percent of "independents" have a negative view of Catholicism, compared with 23 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats. My unsystematic impression is that people who call themselves "independent" in politics are more likely to be liberal than conservative, which may explain why they are the most anti-Catholic of the three political groups . . .

This correlates with another kind of "independent," those who belong to no church. The Gallup organization [George Gallup is himself an Anglican] found that these are the most likely of all to be anti-Catholic - 54 percent of those who never attend church.

Being independent in politics and not belonging to any church are supposed to be signs of open-mindedness. But increasingly, being "open-minded" means being respectful only of other "open-minded" ideas, not of traditional beliefs. The Gallup organization noted that most of the independents who have an unfavorable view of Catholicism are if anything even more unfavorable to Evangelical Protestantism.The Gallup poll merely asked people whether they have a favorable or unfavorable view of the Church. Since people like to be thought tolerant, they may be less than candid in answering "unfavorable." This makes it all the more remarkable that those who have "liberated" themselves from religion admit to such an attitude. They can do so because they are, in my experience, people who think of themselves as incapable of prejudice, something that affects onlychurch members.

Recently there was an extreme manifestation of this bigotry, when a group of radical feminists invaded the cathedral in Montreal and systematically vandalized the church. The attack attracted little attention. For many "open-minded" people the Church is self-evidently an evil institution, and having an unfavorable view of it is not prejudice, merely the recognition of reality.

32. From the website of the American Academy of Religion: "Founded in 1909, the AAR is the world's largest association of academics who research or teach topics related to religion. In its course offering, RELIGION 280: "American Catholicism," taught by Winnifred Sullivan in the Winter 1998 term we find:

33. John C. Kerrigan, Assistant Professor, Director of the Writing Center, Department of English at Fort Hays State University, writes in some notes for students, called "Labels and -Isms":

Another anti-ism which originated in the nineteenth century as a reaction against Catholic immigrants was anti-Catholicism. During the Presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy, anti-Catholic propaganda emerged again from a variety of conservative and fundamentalist quarters, warning Americans against the dangers of a Catholic in the White House who would, so they argued, naturally take directions from the Papacy. For a full discussion of anti-Catholicism and nativism, see Chapter 4 in [Richard T.] Schaefer [of DePaul University], Racial and Ethnic Groups. [Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2000]

Nevertheless, through looking at how evangelical leaders in the past regarded Roman Catholics, and above all, through personally encountering Roman Catholics who have been converted to Christ and who have chosen to live out their bible-based faith in the context of the Roman Catholic church, I have been made aware of two things. Firstly, the right of those Catholics who are born-again and committed to the primary authority of Scripture to be called 'Evangelicals' and to be accepted as thus without qualification; and secondly, the incompatibility of polemical anti-catholicism with a true evangelical faith and spirit. It is the purpose of this short article to develop both these strands of thought.

. . . Space does not permit a detailed look at how evangelical leaders throughout history have regarded Roman Catholics. However it is significant to note how, in spite of a uniform rejection of Roman Catholic theology, and living in a historical context where a confrontational approach was much more understandable, there was a willingness to accept regenerate Roman Catholics as brothers or sisters in Christ, regardless of whether or not they leave their church. This was the case with Zinzendorf, Whitefield, Wesley, Wilberforce, Irving, Spurgeon and reformed leaders such as Machen and Warfield. Wesley's Letter to A Roman Catholic is often quoted, and Spurgeon's diary records this fascinating quote: "In Brussels I heard a good sermon in a Romish church...the good priest - for I believe he is a good man - preached the Lord Jesus with all his might. He spoke of the love of Christ...and the preciousness of His blood, and of His power to save the chief of sinners.... He did not tell us we were saved by grace, and not by our works; but he did say that all the works of men were less than nothing when brought into competition with the blood of Christ, and that the blood of Jesus alone could save. True, there were objectionable sentences...but I could have gone to the preacher and have said to him, 'Brother, you have spoken the truth;'...I was pleased to find my own opinion verified, in his case, that there are, even in the apostate church, some who cleave unto the Lord." (Autobiography vol.ii. pp.21-2) In recent years I have examined the writings of those leaders mentioned above, on this issue, and I have discerned six threads common to most, if not all: (a) a uniform rejection of the Papacy, and an adherence to Reformation theology; (b) a desire, almost a determination, to qualify their judgments and accept believers within the Catholic system; (c) a willingness to accept light from any quarter and a refusal to lay claim to a monopoly of the truth; (d) an openness to praising the strengths within Catholicism and decrying the weaknesses within Protestantism; (e) a condemnation of self-righteous anti-catholicism; (f) a readiness to attend Catholic services, correspond with the Catholic leadership and engage in rational discussion. . . . We move now to the issue of anti-catholicism within Evangelicalism. Again, definition is crucial here. By anti-catholic, I do not mean a rejection of Roman Catholic theological positions. By that definition everyone outside, (and not a few inside), the Roman communion would be deemed anti-catholic! No, it is an undeniable feature of both Reformation and historical evangelical theology that sub-Biblical and extra-Biblical doctrines such as the Infallibility of the Papacy, Transubstantiation, and the decrees on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary, must be rejected. All of the Reformers and major evangelical leaders have been utterly opposed theologically to Roman Catholicism in these areas, many of them saying (according to the spirit of their time) extremely harsh things about the Papacy in particular. Does this mean that they were anti-catholic? Not necessarily. Theological disagreement need not involve suspicion or hostility. For the purposes of this article I wish to highlight four aspects of anti-catholicism which have existed from time to time within Evangelicalism but which I believe are foreign to its true spirit. Blind Prejudice At the simplest and most sinister level, anti-catholicism bears many of the marks of racism, anti-semitism, or other prejudices aimed at cultural or ethnic groupings. These feed on stereo-types and ignorance, and look for evidence to support their preconceived ideas. Conspiracy Theories Blind prejudice leads to a second characteristic, the means by which these prejudices are often rationalised or justified. The Roman Catholic church, it is argued, is undemocratic and authoritarian, and it has at heart an anti-Protestant agenda which it would ruthlessly employ given half a chance. In the past these conspiracy theories were expressed through popular 19th centuryanti-catholic lectures in Britain, the writings of Paul Blanshard and the comics of Jack Chick in the USA, nor are they difficult to find in N.I. today. It is worth noting that the writings of Chick have since been exposed as lies by Christianity Today and Blanshard himself retracted many of his statements later in life when he gave up professing the Christian faith altogether. Lies, Half-truths & Innuendoes These tendencies can be seen in the delight with which the exaggerated or blatantly false depictions of the worst aspects of the Catholic tradition are unfavourably compared with the best aspects of the Protestant tradition. The most famous example of this is the regularly reprinted tale of "Maria Monk," first published in 1836 and telling of enforced convent prostitution and strangling of babies. Monk was later discredited along with several ex-priests who had been popular on the 'anti-catholic lecture' circuit. Confrontational Methodology So far, the correct response to these anti-catholic tendencies should be fairly clear. Such tendencies while not uncommon, are extreme, unevangelical and can rightly be denounced as sinful. Prejudice, rabble-rousing, inducing fear, lying and rumour-mongering are never right. Scripture is clear about that. However the fourth characteristic cannot be so easily dismissed. While I have made it clear above that all Evangelicals will reject aspects of Roman Catholic theology, how we deal with those differences, and the importance we attach to them, are matters of dispute. Some Evangelicals will choose to discuss the issues as they arise in the context of friendship and dialogue, while others will view the Catholic church as the enemy and will see the public renunciation of Roman dogma as an integral part of promoting the evangelical faith. It is this confrontational methodology which I see as the fourth characteristic of anti-catholicism. Not, let me stress, because doctrine is unimportant, but because such a methodology attributes to Roman Catholicism a status it does not merit and a power it has long since lost. Furthermore, confrontational methodology can prove harmful to perpetrator, listener and opponent alike . . . The Opponents Few Catholics can differentiate between an attack on their church and an attack on them. When they hear anti-Roman polemics they feel attacked as people, whether that was intended or not. Therefore an opportunity to communicate has been lost and further alienation has taken place. So, even if the motivation of the speaker has been to present 'the gospel' to Roman Catholics, this too has failed since rather than facilitating communication, their polemical style has in fact hindered it. Conclusion Historian John Wolffe recognises that anti-catholicism is more evident at times of crisis and conflict, but he argues that it runs too deeply within the veins of Evangelicalism to be limited to these periods alone. In fact, he says it "has been an inescapable part of the historical landscape of Evangelicalism." Be that as it may, from a historical perspective, the question still needs to be asked: 'Should it be so? To what extent are anti-catholic attitudes and behaviour consistent with the spirit and ethos of true Evangelicalism?' I believe they are consistent with neither the defining characteristics of Evangelicalism, nor with the views of significant evangelical leaders throughout history, nor with the spirit of the Gospel which Evangelicals seek to embody. On the contrary, the prejudice of anti-catholicism offends the Christ in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, its political motivation offends the Christ who demands our sole allegiance, its half-truths and innuendoes offend the Christ who commands us not to bear false witness, and its confrontational nature offends the Christ who commands us to speak the truth in love. We cannot be prisoners to our history, even evangelical history. Rather, I suggest it is time for the evangelical family to take two bold but related steps forward. Firstly, to affirm as fellow members those Catholics who are prepared to stand with us on Scripture, the Cross, Conversion and the Great Commission, and to be Christians first, Evangelicals second, and Catholics third. Secondly, to disown those who deal in division, court controversy, revel in rumour-mongering and perpetuate prejudice; reminding them that regardless of the theology they espouse or the constituency from which they emerge their credibility as gospel people lies in how they live, and how they love. For without love we are all but "sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal".35. Robert Orsi, Charles Warren Professor of the History of Religion in America, at Harvard Divinity School, "Women and 20th Century Protestantism" conference, held in 1998 at the University of Chicago's Gleacher Center, with sixteen selected scholars. Keynote address, "The Gender of Religious Otherness":

My thinking about anti-Catholicism has been profoundly influenced byJenny Franchot's Roads to Rome: The Antebellum Protestant Encounter with Catholicism(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).

According to many media presentations, the second most important feature of Scottish religion after Calvinism is sectarianism. By that is usually meant the rivalry between Protestants and Catholics that leads to violence at football matches. The point here is that anti-Catholicism, a deep-seated feeling among Evangelicals, has been a distasteful attitude in Scotland. Anti-Catholicism has certainly remained strong, not just in the nineteenth century, but also in the twentieth century; in the 1920s some extraordinary reports to the General Assembly of the Kirk urged racial purity by the deportation of Irish Catholic paupers and criminals from the country.Although it has to be conceded that Evangelicals have sometimes expressed unpleasant attitudes, prejudice was not universal among Evangelicals. Many supported Roman Catholic emancipation in 1829. Although they disagreed with Roman Catholics theologically, they supported their civil rights. The great upsurge in anti-Catholic feeling amongst Evangelicals came in the 1840s because of the huge Irish immigration following the appalling famine in Ireland of that decade. A lot of it at grass-roots level can be recognised as a symptom of fear about competition for scarce jobs. There was an economic explanation of this prejudice which was at least as strong for many people as the theological. Furthermore, this anti-Catholic feeling has now quite properly been diagnosed by Linda Colley in her notable book Britons, as part of the nation-building process whereby British identity was cultivated by Protestantism and war against the French. British nationalism was a strongly anti-Catholic force that could not help but affect Evangelicals. It was not just evangelical Protestantism that was responsible for anti-Catholic attitudes, for they were also encouraged by the secular context and by the state itself. This instance of anti-Catholicism in the ambience of Evangelicalism shows the risk of accepting cultural attitudes because they seem to mesh with evangelical theology. Catholicism appeared to be a bad thing because it was wrong about the way of salvation, and hence many Evangelicals inferred that Catholics were a bad lot. The result of that prejudice has been the virtual impossibility for Protestants to spread the gospel amongst Irish immigrants to Scotland and their descendants ever since the 1840s. The Christian faith in Scotland has suffered in consequence.

In this meticulously researched book, Wolffe examines the anti-Catholic societies which played an important part in the shaping of public opinion, and which exercised significant leverage on politics, notably in 1834-1835 and between 1845 and 1855. He explores the cultural and social dimensions of anti-Catholicism, relating them to the values and impact of evangelicalism at a variety of social levels. This book makes an important contribution to our understanding of Victorian religion, particularly in terms of the interaction between England, Ireland, and Scotland. Wolffe demonstrates that, while the Protestant crusade failed in terms of most of its specific objectives, its impact on the life of the nation was nevertheless far-reaching.

46. Robert J. Klaus, The Pope, the Protestants, and the Irish: Papal Aggression and Anti-Catholicism in Mid-Nineteenth Century England, Garland Pub., 1988.

47. J. R. Wolffe, "Change and Continuity in British Anti-Catholicism, 1829-1982," in F. Tallett and N. Atkin, editors, Catholicism in Britain and France since 1789, 1993.48. Christian Research Institute, founded by Protestant anti-cult researcher Dr. Walter Martin; review of Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism, in the Christian Research Journal, by Kenneth R. Samples (current President of CRI is Hank Hanegraaff, the "Bible Answer Man"):

How should evangelicals view Roman Catholicism? This is an extremely controversial question, and often emotionally charged. The spectrum of opinion among conservative Protestants generally ranges from those who see the Catholic church as foundationally Christian (but with many doctrinal deviations), to those who dismiss Catholicism outright as an inherently evil institution. It would seem, however, that those of the latter persuasion ("anti-Catholics") are in the ascendancy. Chick Publications, Alberto Rivera's Antichrist Information Center, and the Alamo Christian Foundation are three rabidly anti-Catholic organizations which accuse the Roman church not only of promoting false doctrine but of causing many of the social and political ills of our time.

In the midst of this growing anti-Catholic sentiment, a strong Catholic response has come forth in Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating, a lay Catholic apologist. Keating's book is an extensive apologetic work (360 pages) which attempts to answer basic challenges to Catholicism leveled by anti-Catholic fundamentalists. In a broader scope, it attempts to present and defend those distinctive Catholic doctrines which fundamentalists most commonly object to. Keating writes froman orthodox Catholic position, accepting both the authority of the church and the integrity and inspiration of the sacred text.In his preface, Keating clarifies that his book is not a thorough evaluation of Protestant fundamentalism per se, but is rather focused on that subset of fundamentalism which is anti-Catholic, particularly the anti-Catholic organizations.

. . . he does a good job of defining Catholic doctrine and giving thoughtful answers to the often simplistic anti-Catholic objections . . .An additional criticism is that the book does not always distinguish carefully enough between anti-Catholics and those who are merely critical of Catholic doctrine. If this distinction is not made, then all Protestants become anti-Catholic. By the same reasoning, all Catholics become anti-Protestant. In Keating's defense, however, I do believe he normally makes this distinction . . .

The acrimonious relations between Catholics and Protestants in this country are scandalous. If two forms of the Christian faith, though they recognize a common Lord, cannot achieve a little more charity in their relations to each other, they have no right to speak to the world or claim to have any balm for the world's hatreds and mistrusts. The mistrust between Catholics and Protestants has become almost as profound as that between the West and Communism . . . A good deal of Protestantism is little more than anti-Catholicism.

50. Roland Bainton, in the most famous biography of Martin Luther,Here I Stand, New York: Mentor Books, 1950, p. 209, referring to the Peasants' Revolt in Germany in 1524-1525:

Prior to the Peasants' War of 1525 this movement was often anticlerical but not anti-Catholic.

There is much reason to believe that there is a significant material convergence on this issue of the sufficiency of faith for justification, at least among certain Catholics and certain Evangelicals. And this is a convergence that is entirely consistent with their respective traditions. If the Catholic co-signers of "The Gift of Salvation" are willing to say that what they "affirm here is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by faith alone," then I think we should take them at their word. At the very least, our reaction should not be to continue in anti-Catholic polemics that claim that Catholicism continues in a clear and persistent denial of sola fide.. . . Lorraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism stands as a crowning achievement in anti-Catholic pornography, leading more than one person astray with its vicious distortions and half-truths. As evangelical Protestants, we can and must do better than this.

Concluding Thoughts

People certainly misuse the phrase all the time, of course, and this is wrong, but I would assert that Catholic apologists (people who really are trained apologists, not every person who frequents an Internet Board) do not use it in such a subjective, arbitrary way, and that the improper, corrupt use of it -- while objectionable -- can never determine its meaning (as with any other word).People use the phrase anti-Catholic in somewhat different ways, according to what their purpose is. The sociologists and historians (virtually all the folks I cite) are not primarily interested (often not at all) in Christian doctrinal controversies, but in human behavior, and how that affects societies, culture, or history (taking a long view). Thus, they would emphasize the hostilities, prejudices, propandistic and conspiratorial elements, fears of the unknown, economic and social agitators, class, religious, and ethnic rivalries, cultural assimilation, political ramifications and trends, etc.However, some of the sociologists and historians who better understand Christian doctrine and history, have also acknowledged the doctrinal component which comprises my sole working definition ("those who deny that the Catholic Church is a Christian institution"). Almost always, the people who are writing anti-Catholic literature or spouting it in some other fashion, are also anti-Catholic in this sense.And I think it is implicit in the use of the term in virtually all these scholars, and is seen in the examples they mention. Here are a few examples I would cite (all perfectly consistent with my definition). Note that -- not unexpectedly at all -- the last two writers come the closest to my definition precisely because they are a pastor and an apologist, respectively, rather than a sociologist or historian, as the others are:#3 Page Smith: "Pious Protestants still thought of the Pope as the Antichrist, the enemy of the faith, the Beast of the Apocalypse."#6 Martin Marty: ". . . the editor of the Protestant Home Missionary picked up the cry for the West, where was to be fought a great battle 'between truth and error, between lawand anarchy -- between Christianity . . . and the combined forces of Infidelity and Popery.' "#9 Mark Noll "Protestant anti-Romanism was a staple of the American theological world . . ." ". . . conservative Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge, brought down great wrath upon his head for defending the validity of Catholic baptism [as John Calvin himself had done], even though that defense fully maintained Protestant arguments about the deviance of Rome." "Protestant writing against Catholicism retained the historical theological animus, but it was almost always a political expression as well."#11 David O. Moberg: "the tensions have a continuing social, psychological, and ideological basis which must not be overlooked."#12 James Davison Hunter: "Catholics were regarded by Protestants as heretics who had perverted the true faith." ". . . anti-Catholic hostility . . . took expression primarily as religious hostility -- as a quarrel over religious doctrine, practice, and authority."#34 David Montgomery (Presbyterian pastor): "definition is crucial here. By anti-catholic, I do not mean a rejection of Roman Catholic theological positions. By that definition everyone outside, (and not a few inside), the Roman communion would be deemed anti-catholic! . . . Theological disagreement need not involve suspicion or hostility. "Some Evangelicals will choose to discuss the issues as they arise in the context of friendship and dialogue, while others will view the Catholic church as the enemy and will see the public renunciation of Roman dogma as an integral part of promoting the evangelical faith. It is this confrontational methodology which I see as the fourth characteristic of anti-catholicism. Not, let me stress, because doctrine is unimportant, but because such a methodology attributes to Roman Catholicism a status it does not merit . . . "#48 Kenneth R. Samples (apologist at the Christian Research Institute): "The spectrum of opinion among conservative Protestants generally ranges from those who see the Catholic church as foundationally Christian (but with many doctrinal deviations), to those who dismiss Catholicism outright as an inherently evil institution. It would seem, however, that those of the latter persuasion ("anti-Catholics") are in the ascendancy. "An additional criticism is that the book does not always distinguish carefully enough between anti-Catholics and those who are merely critical of Catholic doctrine. If this distinction is not made, then all Protestants become anti-Catholic. By the same reasoning, all Catholics become anti-Protestant. In Keating's defense, however, I do believe he normally makes this distinction . . ."The standard Catholic definition is the same as the historical or sociological one, but emphasizes more the doctrinal aspect, as we would fully expect. My own working definition (the belief that the Catholic Church is not a Christian institution) is actually a lot narrower and more specific than that of the Protestant or secular scholars I cite. Ridicule and misinterpretations are almost always associated with anti-Catholicism, because the lack of respect and denial of Christian status brings on the mockery and lack of concern for accurate portrayal. All benefit of the doubt is thrown out the window.For myself, I prefer to stick to doctrine in the definition of anti-Catholic, but that would be expected from me, as I am an apologist, concerned with doctrine, and not so much with social conditions and trends (i.e., as my emphasis or type of work). On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the prevalence of these behaviors and attitudes. They are part and parcel of anti-Catholicism, and always have been, because human nature is to condescend to people who are thought to be fools, dupes of Satan, inveterate enemies and haters of God, truth, apple pie, goodness and decency, mom, etc.There are many so-called Catholic "traditionalists" who now say that the Church is no longer the Church, and the pope isn't the pope, etc. Many liberal self-proclaimed Catholics redefine the Church so that heterodoxy is orthodoxy, and that what actually is, isn't "really" the Church (that they have wishfully constructed in their minds: a Church that accepts, e.g., fornication, feminism, homosexuality, abortion, contraception, etc.).Definition depends on context. If, e.g., Catholic sociologists or legal advocacy groups which fight anti-Catholic discrimination used the term anti-Catholic, it would usually be in a sociological, behavioral sense. When an apologist or theologian does (as in my own usage), it is doctrinal. Both are correct, because "anti" means "against." One type of anti-Catholicism is against the Church or individuals in it, in a personal, social, or legal sense. The other type opposes it theologically as the Great non-Christian Beast, Whore of Babylon, Antichrist, etc., etc.My definition agrees with the Protestant and secular scholarly ones utilized in historiography and sociology. All the Catholic apologist does is narrow their broader definition down to doctrine alone. I've thought about this sort of thing for more than twenty years because I was a cult researcher as an evangelical in the early 80s and we were always very careful to define what we meant by "cult." We had these same problems to work through, and I have not had to change my methodology one bit since I converted. No need to: evangelical Protestant scholars and clergy and other theological writers agree with me on the definition. This is the whole point of my documentation. Catholic apologists and Catholics in general who comment on these matters are doing nothing that isn't fully recognized in the fields of Church history and sociology of religion. That's why this entire discussion is so utterly silly and unnecessary. You continue to affirm your earlier views that our definition is "prejudicial" and "irrational." You have learned nothing.In the old days we would say that, e.g., "a cult is a group which claims to be Christian but in fact is not" (due to denying the Trinity or the Nicene Creed, etc.). So Mormons, Christian Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other such groups qualified. Therefore, I was "anti-Mormon" or "anti-Jehovah's Witnesses" in that sense, and remain so to this day. Why is it, then, that when we Catholic apologists simply call a spade a spade and use "anti-Catholic" in an exactly parallel sense (i.e., "an anti-Catholic is one who considers the Catholic Church a 'cult': a group which claims to be Christian but in fact is not"), somehow this is improper, irrational, and arbitrary, and a so-called example of prejudice?I've never understood this (probably because I worked through these issues 20 years ago when I was doing cult research and evangelization). Why is it that published or prominent Internet anti-Catholics and all the others who believe that the Catholic Church is not a Christian organization or institution, and fight against it as part of their apologetic work, are so dead-opposed to being called anti-Catholics (once it is clearly understood how the term is being used)? I have never objected to being called "anti-abortion." Strange, odd . . .I am not anti-Orthodox because I consider Orthodox Christians. Likewise, I am not anti-Protestant, because I consider Protestants Christians. Catholics who adhere to Vatican II and the Catechism and papal encyclicals have no other choice. And this is nothing new, either.Though most anti-Catholics today will not burn my house down (or even burn a cross on my lawn), they still will (sometimes) not even eat with the likes of me, and many have inherited in some sense the whole heritage of vitriol, misrepresentation, and condescension that has been passed down all the way from Martin Luther. I don't think that can be dismissed lightly. The interior attitudes of sheer derision and opposition (on fallacious, utterly mistaken grounds) affect anti-Catholics today, I believe, though I don't get into analyzing individuals and attributing to them various nefarious motives. Refusing to eat with someone (as one prominent anti-Catholic Protestant apologist does, with regard to Catholic apologists) is an outward behavior, so it can be analyzed objectively to some extent.Personally, I think a Protestant could legitimately (and non-offensively) say, "I believe Catholics are worshiping Mary because I don't accept the category of veneration, but I recognize that they themselves do make such a distinction, so that this is not a self-conscious act of blasphemy or idolatry on their part, as unsavory and offensive as it is to me, and the Bible [etc.]." I would have no problem whatever with this, and would recognize it as sincere disagreement from a Protestant, according to their own differing premises and overall Christian paradigm.What the anti-Catholic often does, though (speaking socio-psychologically for a moment) is refuse to grant the Catholic any good faith or sincerity from within their own premises whatsoever. To them, it is rank idolatry, period, and probably consciously, deliberately so. End of sentence. They don't care about the self-report of the Catholic, or any possible apologetic, biblical justification. That is far too subtle for them, and they never get to that point, precisely because their animus is so great that they would never grant Catholicism enough respect to ever get to a place where it would occur to them that the contrary Catholic belief should be given any hearing at all.This is the mentality of pure prejudice. But I digress. I hasten to add that I don't think all anti-Catholics would have this attitude, of course, but I know many do, from reading their rants (in, e.g., nasty, pathetic little letters I get in my mailbox), and I know that virtually anyone who has that attitude is an anti-Catholic in my doctrinal sense.My definitional criterion easily applies to Protestants and Orthodox. If someone denies they are Christians, they are anti-Protestant or anti-Orthodox. And I am consistent in this. The term anti-Protestant, in fact, was used by Kenneth Samples (#48), David Montgomery (#34), and sociologist David Moberg (#11), as seen above.Anti-Protestantism is now rampant among the media and the academic and politically liberal elite, almost as much as anti-Catholicism. I think that is one of many very good reasons to stop our scandalous in-fighting and self-destruction and close ranks to fight the pagans and infidels. The more we fight, the more they take over culture, to everyone's detriment.

Finally, I had an exchange with yet another Protestant (with whom I have often dialogued in the past) who claimed that anti-Catholicism was a "prejudice-invoking" title. This was my response:

I'm just wondering: does that mean that the 50 scholars I cited, who use the term frequently, are invoking prejudice, too? If not, is it not conceivable in your mind that a Catholic apologist like myself might also use the term with no intent whatsoever of "invoking prejudice," but simply as an accurate description of a certain mindset?If scholars can use the term without invoking such ridiculous paranoia, why cannot Catholic apologists? Secondly, would a black person in the American south in, say, 1890, possess this "underdog-being-besieged-by-bigots mentality"? Would he be justified in doing so? That's not to say I think Catholics should be paranoid. Most Catholics I know don't lose a moment's sleep over anti-Catholicism. They simply know that it is a fact of life, and point it out where necessary. It's not that big of a deal to us. But when its very existence is denied, we will put up a big fuss, because it is indeed a reality.My present point is that it looks like you have a huge problem of consistency if you wish to claim that use of the term is inherently "paranoid" or some such, when it has been a standard term in religious sociology and Church history for many decades. And my citations were mostly from Protestants. Are all the scholars I cite "name-calling," or do you acknowledge any legitimate use of anti-Catholicism for anyone? Or can only Protestants use it without psychological paranoia and persecution complexes? As soon as a Catholic does, that is proof positive of his psychological deficiencies, prejudice, and glaring linguistic shortcomings?As soon as you admit (if you do) that a Catholic can use the term in a non-judgmental, non-prejudicial, sociological sense (as I do), then its use can only be judged on a case-by-case basis. If that is so, then you will have to restrict your assailing of the term in a broad-based manner, and confine yourself to critiquing individuals who distort and abuse the term. Your critique has been broad and sweeping, and it is its indefensible scope (as if all use of the word is inherently dishonest, misleading, or prejudice-inducing) which is my primary beef here.You have your complaints about terminology? So do I. The difference, now, though, is that I have gone and done the work and produced 50 scholars or authors who use the term, thus showing that there is nothing inherently objectionable at all in its use. Nothing like some objective standard to bring clarity into an oftentimes irrationally emotional discussion . . .

All of this was to no avail. My friend didn't care whether 200 scholars used the term; it made no difference, because they, too, can have a "stinky agenda" which blinds them to reality. Catholics whine too often and try to portray themselves as victims, and should rejoice in the fact that Jesus predicted persecution for all of His followers, rather than utilizing "stupid power games." Many Catholic converts have an outlook not unlike Protestant Fundamentalists. The term anti-Catholic is "prejudicial, emotional, and useless" in Protestant-Catholic discussion, so we are told. I prefer to rely on the scholarly definitions, as outlined above.ADDENDUM ON ANTI-PROTESTANTISM

I believe that anti-Protestantism or anti-evangelicalism is also a vast and disturbing social problem, coming largely from the left, the media, academia, and the entertainment industry, and including also the usual prevalent bias against "Southern conservative white guys" who are invariably stereotyped as troglodyte anti-intellectual fundamentalists -- the portrayal of the Scopes Trial, e.g., is a quintessential instance of this (and this itself is part of the common Northern bigotry against the South: and I say this as a Michigander, though one of my grandfathers was born in Alabama).As to the relative prevalence of both, I don't have any particular strong opinion, nor do I think it matters much. The important thing is for conscientious Christians to condemn both.That said, I would note that the official Catholic position is to acknowledge Protestants as Christian brothers, whereas many Protestant groups either are officially anti-Catholic or contain within themselves a strong legacy of anti-Catholicism which is then passed down almost unconsciously.Therefore, I would suspect (though I don't assert) that anti-Catholicism is the more prevalent of the two, simply because it is fed from an important and influential sub-stream of Protestantism as well as from the secular and leftist worlds, which would seem to me to despise both of our camps alike.Individuals, of course, might fall short of properly informed and charitable attitudes, just as they do concerning ethics or theology, generally-speaking. The difference with the Catholic, though, is that if he rails about Protestants being non-Christians, he is going against the express teaching of Vatican II, which is binding on all Catholics, whereas when Protestants do the reverse, they are in a quite respectable Protestant tradition which can easily be traced right to Luther and Calvin themselves.So they are arguably in the mainstream of their tradition, whereas Catholics must violate their actual tradition to do the same thing. For example, Feeneyites may claim Protestants aren't Christians, but they have been condemned by the Church itself as an erroneous fringe group.I suppose this is enough to arouse ire against me, but again, I reiterate that I think anti-Protestantism is an extremely serious social problem and acceptable prejudice as well. If anti-Catholicism is a greater problem, it is only because it is so often generated by fellow Christians and not simply secularists who are nominal concerning, or outside any brand of Christianity whatsoever.I should clarify that secular anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism both are more in the nature of a "sociological derision" -- we are opposed because of our stands on traditional morality or because of political conservatism, or (above all) opposition to abortion and the Sexual Revolution, homosexuality and so forth.The secularist doesn't care enough about doctrine for that to be any issue for them. They would acknowledge both camps as Christian: they simply don't like us (we're "lousy citizens" who aren't playing the game the way it should be played). It is all social issues for them and intolerance for the counter-cultural aspects of any form of solid, robust, life- and culture-transforming Christianity.One should note the different definition, then. My standard use and definition of "anti-Catholic" and "anti-Protestant" both, is the mistaken and self-defeating view that those groups are not Christians. The Protestant anti-Catholic may also despise some sociological or non-theological aspects of Catholicism, but that does not enter into my own use of the term, as I have stated many times.

The secularist, on the other hand, is usually not concerned with theological categories or content. It is a more pure prejudice, based on mere disagreement and dislike, because many Christians are not good social liberals and cause too many problems and inconveniences.

At least the educated anti-Catholic Protestant usually has some principles of theology that he thinks (either rightly or oftentimes wrongly) that the Catholic Church opposes. They are right when they say we oppose sola fide and sola Scriptura; wrong when they claim that we oppose sola gratia. It is just as wrong, and it is just as wicked, but at least they think they are upholding some better good (true theology and the following of Christ), whereas the secularist has few noble motives at all in his anti-Catholicism or anti-Protestantism, whatever the case may be.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).